Sunday, September 23, 2018

Is Trump About to Put Up a Welfare Wall?

By Robert Wendel

Even the stumbling President Donald Trump can get something right once and awhile.

It appears that he is setting up something close to a welfare wall.
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration announced Saturday it will seek to deny green cards to immigrants who are likely to use public assistance, including housing vouchers and food subsidies.

In announcing the proposal, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” according to a statement on the DHS website. She added, “This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”

I am not an advocate of preventing immigrants who want to work in the United States from entering the country, or those who want to vacation here or those who can otherwise afford to live here, but I am against the government supporting such immigrants with payouts.

Please don't start again with your non sequiturs. Nobody is talking about "letting people invade" anything.

Many of those who are against immigration place too much emphasis on the welfare state and benefits without realizing or at least not considering that welfare and other government-provided 'benefits' are merely another political tool and that, as such, are not going to be subject to static or even objective targets but to political goals. Putting a 'wall' around welfare benefits that would exclude immigrants would only shift the focus towards other political goals. The problem is not immigrants but welfarism itself.

Besides this, it is not true that immigrants are motivated by welfare to migrate to the US, or any country whatsoever. They migrate to the US because they expect to improve their chances to make MORE PROFITABLE trades with their labor. The SAME motivation drives people to move from New York to Tennessee or Florida. There are additional motives as well but all of them are derived from the same wish to improve one's lot. People thus motivated by profit are productive people. Why would the existence of the welfare state be justification to deprive an economy of such a lucrative opportunity? That makes no sense, therefore it's a sham. It's not true. Anti-immigration feelings have nothing to do with a wish to reduce the size of the welfare state. Instead, welfarism becomes just another excuse to justify anti-immigration policies on pseudo-utilitarian grounds.

That's kind of hard to do at times when libertardians want the entire turd world to come over and they support corporations outsourcing everything even though somehow, according to libertardian economic theory, those goods will just get cheaper and we still have jobs that pay good enough to afford much of anything.

TLM, I was making a moral argument, not an economic argument. Why should the individuals at the state be entitled to rob taxpayers to support citizens but not immigrants? Either robbery is right or it is wrong.

The same reason club members get benefits that non-members don't get. It is weird to see Wenzel say exactly what 99% of Trump supporters have been saying. I thoufht they were all good people who are invited by the market... Maybe Torres meant the market for free stuff.

I'm not glossing over anything nor am I defending taxation. You asked a question and I gave realistic answer. The vast majority of the people in the world do not view taxation as theft. Until that changes, we are just spinning our wheels in the mud. I think you're taking a silly position on the matter. The smart and forward looking position would be to cheer this reduction or removal of benefits to this specific group (in this case illegal immigrants and those who wish to emigrate) and understand that any reduction in the distribution of stolen loot is a good thing. I assume anyone at this site is generally on the same page in regards to the libertarian 101 principles you're touching on.

Rob, I didn't suggest that we should object to the fact that the state is proposing to deny one group access to the stolen loot. My point is argumentative and moral consistency. The state-managed-borders crowd makes a lot of noise about denying welfare to immigrants, but is strangely silent about denying welfare to citizens; it's almost as if they have a double standard.

As to the dollars at issue, two points. First, I'm sure that welfare to citizens is a much bigger number than welfare to immigrants. Second, I don't expect the amount of stolen loot to be reduced if the state took the action proposed; it would simply re-purpose those dollars for some other nefarious purpose.

Robert, I bet you saw the economic ignorance or misinformation behind this statement: "She [IKEA lady] added, 'This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and ***protect finite resources*** by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.' ”

Do you know who else talks about "protecting finite resources"? Yup -- the Neomalthusians. It's a scam. They're going to exclude poorer people that nevertheless can sustain themselves by requiring them outrageously high levels of wherewithal, under the guise of protecting "resources".

The resources being discussed are those of the federal government. And government resources are finite. There are limits to what government can take from people without impairing or even collapsing the economy. Even if fedgov borrows from the future that does change the situation. There are limits. Government does not have nor can obtain infinite resources.

Also the more government hands out the less those running and operating government keep for themselves.

Most if not all federal welfare is already blocked. It is on the state, county, and city levels from which the welfare for immigrants legal and not comes. The only way for Trump to stop this would be to start denying federal redistribution monies to these other units of government.

Also damaging to the taxpayers is the growth of government services and infrastructure which they cannot afford.